The sentencing of two young Turkish mothers to six months in prison for travelling with forged documents last week has provoked a debate on how the courts function and whether justice is indeed blind.
What provoked this reaction was the fact the two women were accompanied in court by their infant sons who could be heard crying outside the courtroom throughout the proceedings.
Jailing the mothers meant the two boys, aged three and four, were separated from them and alone in a country and an environment that were completely alien to them.
The fact an appeal has been filed and that the women are in the process of applying for asylum are an opportunity for the mistakes committed to be addressed. Hopefully, both applications are given the urgency they deserve.
This appears to have been a rushed job, treated as a matter of routine but overlooking the particular circumstances and problems brought about by the presence of two minors being torn apart from their mothers.
Their trauma must have started when they witnessed their mothers being arrested at the airport, then taken to court but unable to go inside the courtroom as proceedings were underway.
The likelihood that the two women would be jailed emerges from the fact that Appoġġ officials were waiting outside the courtroom to take temporary care of the children. One shudders to imagine what the effect on the two young boys would have been if only allowed to have “adequate contact” with their mothers in prison or in a controlled environment.
The boys are in the so-called ‘imprint period’ and psychologists advise that childhood experiences during that stage are likely to have a lifelong impact on a child in terms of feelings, behaviour and how they view the world around them. Of course, the offences the two women were found guilt of cannot be taken lightly. It is also true, as the prosecution pointed out, that human traffickers could well present illegal migrants as couples with small children.
Still, when faced with such instances, rather than rushing to court, the police could have acted like the wise Solomon had done and offer the mothers a choice to save their children from unnecessary trauma and try get behind the human trafficking operation. If the action by the police and the child protection services left a lot to be desired, the magistrates’ court projected itself as unwilling or unable to handle sensitive situations such as this.
True, the magistrate opted for the minimum jail term but the mothers’ lawyer argued that the law does not exclude a suspended jail term, a conditional discharge or even probation. Such a sentence would have shown the appropriate mercy expected of a wise court. Let us not forget one other important issue - the women say they fled their country to avoid harsh consequences because of their political beliefs. A human rights expert said the court decision “seriously infringes” Malta’s international legal obligations.
Two architects recently found guilty of the involuntary homicide of a woman killed when her house collapsed during construction work next door were ordered to do community work and fined. A man who held a shop owner at gunpoint, then making off with the cash register, was also spared jail.
Such instances are justifiably perceived as inconsistencies and give rise to doubts about how the courts function. An issue that is often brought to the fore when this happens is the suitability or otherwise of a sentencing policy.
As the ultimate bulwark of society, the courts and the judiciary must ensure that justice is done in a timely fashion. But justice must also have a human face.